
You're the chief justice of the United States, and you're presented with a choice: Either rebuke the political movement that gave you your dream job, or put your institution's reputation on the line by neutering a sitting president's signature legislation for the first time in 75 years.
This is the unenviable dilemma John Roberts faces as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on "Obamacare." Initial votes were cast by the justices last Friday, and a final decision on the law's constitutionality is expected by the end of June. And with four liberal justices considered a lock to uphold the law, Roberts is uniquely positioned to determine the law's fate, and faces considerable risks no matter what he chooses.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Hindsight hasn't changed Jeffrey Toobin's mind.
A week after oral arguments led him to predict that the Supreme Court will strike down a key piece of President Obama's health care law, the legal commentator stands by his gloomy forecast, and explained his reasoning in full detail in an interview with TPM.
"I'm not wild about being so far out on a limb, but all I can do is call it the way I see it, and I did," Toobin said by telephone Monday evening.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Wednesday's Supreme Court arguments over the fate of the president's health care law were defined by the same themes that marked the first two days: Liberal justices directed their toughest questions on the challengers, while conservative justices relished the opportunity to tie the administration's lawyers in logical knots.
That may seem unsurprising -- why wouldn't the same ideological divisions that have dogged the law for two years carry over into the high court, all the way through six hours of oral arguments?
But Wednesday's arguments weren't about the controversy at the center of the legal challenge -- can the government compel people to buy health insurance? They were about the court's discretion to interfere with the rest of the law, and a decades-long understanding of the relationship between the federal government and the states. Most legal observers assumed the issues at stake on Wednesday were no-brainers. So the fact that the conservative justices once again aligned -- at least rhetorically -- in sympathy with the challengers suggests just how tempted they are to swing for the ideological fences.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)The snap reactions to today's Supreme Court arguments about the constitutionality of the health care law's individual mandate gave reform supporters a collective case of heartburn. The conservative justices seemed broadly hostile to the law's requirement that everyone carry health insurance. President Obama's Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, was widely panned by experienced court watchers for stumbling at key moments. Jeffery Toobin -- a seasoned vet of the high court -- called it a "train wreck" for the Obama administration.
Here's some antacid.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy -- two critical swing votes in the health care reform case before the Supreme Court -- asked skeptical questions about the individual mandate Tuesday, but rounded out the arguments with some sympathy for the federal government's broad power to regulate health insurance.
With reform supporters battered by early analysis suggesting the court's conservatives were hostile to the health care law's requirement that Americans purchase health insurance, Roberts' and Kennedy's more balanced questions renewed hope that the law will be upheld.
Indeed, with the four justices comprising the court's liberal wing likely to uphold the mandate, the outcome seems destined to hinge on Kennedy and Roberts. And though the two conservatives didn't fully betray their leanings, the Obama administration and supporters of health care reform almost certainly only need one of their votes to prevail.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Democrats Hope Money, Manpower Stem Losses
The Associated Press reports: "Under no illusions about their challenges this fall, Democrats are expressing optimism that the party's financial might and voter turnout operations will help stem widespread losses. The GOP's governing track record may help, too, they say. 'There's a lot of doom and gloom about it, but I think we're going to do a lot better than people think,' Tim Kaine, the Democratic Party chairman, told Democratic National Committee members at a two-day meeting. 'We've got a long way to go, but I think a number of factors are moving in the right direction for us.'
Anthony Kennedy Favors Civilian Courts In Terrorism Cases
The Associated Press reports: "Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said Thursday that most terrorism cases should be tried in civilian courts. Kennedy addressed participants in the 9th Circuit Judicial Conference on Maui, where a panel discussion earlier this week reached a consensus in favor of using civilian courts instead of military commissions in most terrorism cases. 'Article III courts are quite capable of trying these terrorist cases,' Kennedy said, agreeing with the conclusion."
Obama: 'Wall Street Reform Will Bring Greater Security To Folks On Main Street'
In this weekend's YouTube address, President Obama promoted what he said would be the benefits of the financial reform bill currently being considered in the Senate, in the areas of consumer protection and institutional oversight.
"With reform, we'll make our financial system more transparent by bringing the kinds of complex, backroom deals that helped trigger this crisis into the light of day," said Obama. "We'll prevent banks from taking on so much risk that they could collapse and threaten our whole economy. And we'll give shareholders more of a say on pay to help change the perverse incentives that encouraged reckless risk-taking in the first place. Put simply, Wall Street reform will bring greater security to folks on Main Street."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
